[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[squadops]

Seems pretty easy, seeing as we don't.

Separation of church and state again? really? The state shall impose no religion on it's people, and we don't. Take the word out all you like if it makes you feel that much better, no worries though, you still will not support our troops or country imo.

Big whoop out of nothing other than ego.

 

[mustafur]

I get it. Read my oath post above. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree about guns. It's a never ending debate, but even a Presidential Oath is to uphold Constitutional obligation. This means that anti gun politicians have no intention of doing what they swore to. This should raise red flags with Americans, but never does. It's all about the guy who is going to change everything.

Who did you vote for last at the Federal level?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I think that you are about to join my ignore list...

What? Again, what are you talking about? What has Bernie Sanders as a Democratic Socialist have anything to do with what you have written? Omg, stop just a minute and think about how today's ultra capitalistic Usa is.

Please note that we haven't even gotten into the discussion that Democratic Socalist is just a simple code word. I can probably tear you to shreds on that one.

Low minimum wages

As Franklin Roosevelt once said, and I am paraphrasing here, minimum wage isn't supposed to be a career choice. Minimum wage is largely governed by the inflation rate. Besides, a lot of employers pay well above the minimum wage in the USA.

no unions to speak of,

There are plenty of unions here in the USA. Here are a few: AFL-CLO, SCIU, every teacher union in the USA. Need I go on?

can be fired on the spot,

Right to work laws only exist in 25 states that are enforced. West Virginia has such a law passed, but it isn't in effect.

Big corporations dictate how the country is run,

No, not really. That job goes to the special interest groups, the lobbyists and polictians who believe that you have to pay them to get what law that you want passed passed (Hillary).

does it not sound like fascist society(group running the show) and you talk about a democrat socialist promoting communism and nazims. Dude, do you not see that you are living in a country that does not have more freedom than china/russia?

And had they not embraced capitalism, where do you think they would be today? Probably a little better off than North Korea...

USA need a new direction, for all of us in this world. what happens in USA does indeed affect the world. Bernie seems as a rational person with nothing but down to earth solutions that does not affect you negatively. It is more about how to deal with how the big companies/banks and such behaves like greedy bastards. Are you top 1% elite, I do not think so, so stop complaining.

I would like to ask you how Bernie Sanders is going to pay for said reforms if said elite took their money and left the USA, but I don't think that you are sane enough to give a legitimate answer, given your history of dodging legitimate questions.

 

[Blood Eagle]

It wasn't there until 1956 anyway, and should be removed.

But at the end of the day, it's there and doesn't make currency useless. Once you get over the emotional part about a word keeping you up at night, accept it as a formality. If you can't, never make or spend any currency out of principle and personal belief.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Who did you vote for last at the Federal level?

Ron Paul.

 

[squadops]

Bernie is rational?

Sure he is, check the federal budget under his watch lol.

 

[mustafur]

Ron Paul.

So you didn't vote in the actual election or you wrote him in?
and are you planning to vote this time and for who?

Bernie is rational?

Sure he is, check the federal budget under his watch lol.

Because he is the only person in charge of that, even if he was apposed to everything he wouldn't make up the numbers to make a difference in the committee.

 

[CodeRedR51]

...you still will not support our troops or country imo..

Saying that a word shouldn't be in oaths or on money does NOT mean I don't support our troops. My uncle is retired Navy for 🤬 sakes and I look up to him more than anyone else in my family. So go jump off a bridge with your assumptions, which you seem to do over and over.

But at the end of the day, it's there and doesn't make currency useless. Once you get over the emotional part about a word keeping you up at night, accept it as a formality. If you can't, never make or spend any currency out of principle and personal belief.

But I don't have to put my hand on it and swear to tell the truth, which is the point.

 

[Blood Eagle]

So you didn't vote in the actual election or you wrote him in?

Write in.

 

[squadops]

Easy killer, you don't support our troops as evident by your posts regarding our involvement overseas. As well as your support for Bernie mind you.

And now it seems that @mustafur is advocating the lesser of two evils, do I read that right?

You guys are the one's all over the map but I won't exactly say that. I've known and am friends with many like you guys, it seems to me you like to have your cake and eat it to, it does not work that way.

 

[Tornado]

Strangely, much like voting in a religious building, swearing a legal oath in a court of law doesn't require religious affinity or commitment.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

A peer-reviewed joint study by Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, published in March 2013, organized all 50 states into quartiles according to Brady Center ratings of the strength of each state's gun control laws. It found that states in the quartile with the strictest laws had a 40% lower rate of gun-associated homicide (does not include suicides, so it meets your "personal requirements") than the states in the quartile with the laxest laws.

Wouldn't call it conclusive since there is a narrow scope to the study, but you did say yourself that they weren't out to try and make some correlation.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

This one shows a more conclusive scope to the question being asked by Bloodeagle, which is there is no strong correlation for the cause and effect of some states with strict laws having low gun homicide rates, and other states with strict laws having high gun homicide rates. It also can be said that it doesn't seem to explain the reciprocal either.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Easy killer, you don't support our troops as evident by your posts regarding our involvement overseas.

Where it the F did you come to that conclusion?

 

[mustafur]

Easy killer, you don't support our troops as evident by your posts regarding our involvement overseas. As well as your support for Bernie mind you.

And now it seems that @mustafur is advocating the lesser of two evils, do I read that right?

You guys are the one's all over the map but I won't exactly say that. I've known and am friends with many like you guys, it seems to me you like to have your cake and eat it to, it does not work that way.

Must be news to me when you disprove incorrect information it means your advocating something.

You have Claimed im being ''mad'' or ''advocating a lesser evil'' yet all im doing is disproving your assumptions and incorrect details on what you think is true.

 

[squadops]

Telling me your honest thoughts on Iraq would be enough 👍

 

[huskeR32]

This means that anti gun politicians have no intention of doing what they swore to.

That's only true if the second was always intended to protect an individual right to bear arms. SCOTUS didn't hold that to be the case until Heller, 217 years after it was adopted.

The pro-gun crowd doesn't get to pretend their view is infallibly the only one with constitutional merit.

 

[squadops]

Must be news to me when you disprove incorrect information it means your advocating something.

What is incorrect, who he voted for?

The pro-gun crowd doesn't get to pretend their view is infallibly the only one with constitutional merit.

The pro-gun crowd doesn't get to pretend their view is infallibly the only one with constitutional merit.

What part of freedom do you not understand exactly?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Telling me your honest thoughts on Iraq would be enough 👍

WMDs were in our backyard all along?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Telling me your honest thoughts on Iraq would be enough 👍

So you are telling me I don't support our troops based on things I never said, which you would now like me to explain? WTF are you on man?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's only true if the second was always intended to protect an individual right to bear arms. SCOTUS didn't hold that to be the case until Heller, 217 years after it was adopted.

The pro-gun crowd doesn't get to pretend their view is infallibly the only one with constitutional merit.

We don't...at least I don't and most of the other pro-gun viewers here don't. In fact there are several views that are constitutionally on the books in the same regard as the second.

 

[squadops]

So you are telling me I don't support our troops based on things I never said, which you would now like me to explain? WTF are you on man?

What are you going to be, one of those guys that says he supports the troops but not the war? It doesn't work that way. They were protecting our interests, now if you do not care for our interests than that would be a different thing.

I suppose you are now saying you were in favor of the iraq wars?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What are you going to be, one of those guys that says he supports the troops but not the war? It doesn't work that way. They were protecting our interests, now if you do not care for our interests than that would be a different thing.

So what do you call a person in the military that doesn't support the war they fight in? I'm confused by this black and white myopic notion.

 

[huskeR32]

We don't...at least I don't and most of the other pro-gun viewers here don't. In fact there are several views that are constitutionally on the books in the same regard as the second.

The statement I was quoting quite clearly staked out that stance.

 

[CodeRedR51]

What are you going to be, one of those guys that says he supports the troops but not the war? It doesn't work that way. They were protecting our interests, now if you do not care for our interests than that would be a different thing.

I suppose you are now saying you were in favor of the iraq wars?

So you are saying because I support our troops, I have to support the reason we are at war? So if I don't support the reason we are at war, I don't support the troops? That's your logic? Get out.

 

[mustafur]

What is incorrect, who he voted for?

That the federal budget it's current state is of Bernie sanders doing.

Has he supported everything that got passed?

You could literally have Ron Paul on that Table, but because he would be at a complete minority it wouldn't effect anything.

 

[squadops]

The statement I was quoting quite clearly staked out that stance.

You want to know what it really means? It means we have the right to protect ourselves from the government you would like to see in power. That is what it means.

The idea of hunting or home protection was a given, no one ever considered seeing people like you in the future.

So you are saying because I support our troops, I have to support the reason we are at war? So if I don't support the reason we are at war, I don't support the troops? That's your logic? Get out.

That is exactly what I am saying. And btw, how amazing it is to me to see no one else thank our troops in here.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The statement I was quoting quite clearly staked out that stance.

Then why use a general notion, like the pro-gun crowd as if it's some hive mind? Doesn't matter how on point the quote was, you use a sweeping generalization to address one pro-gun person.

 

[mustafur]

So what do you call a person in the military that doesn't support the war they fight in? I'm confused by this black and white myopic notion.

Technically that would go against the oath.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Technically that would go against the oath.

And yet there has been many to do so, yes the military prefers to not speak your political affiliations or positions on many topics while in service but it's not absolute.

Many speak more openly after active service is over, because there are plenty who aren't going to agree but there is a job and contract they agreed to, as well as the whole jail time if they abandon.

 

[CodeRedR51]

That is exactly what I am saying.

Well I haven't seen much logic from you anyway, so it's no surprise I'm not finding any here.